My viewpoint as a Viet Nam vet on private ownership of weapons. If you enable you are responsible. If you want to quote the 2nd Amendment - the arms you have the “right to bear” are unrifled muzzle loading muskets that the founding fathers were referring to; not modern day automatics or semi-automatics with their ranges of a mile or more.

Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard.

You might have a different opinion if you or a loved one got caught by a misdirected bullet—which happens all the time.

Besides that, do you have no interest in the kind of society you live in?

Lois, Gary’s post here states that: “he shouldn’t have to worry about the drunk with the gun…”
In otherwords the societal/legal conditions(ie lax gun laws) put Gary(and most of us) in a position in which he may have to worry about that.

Your retort is misdirected. You and Gary are on the same page.

Is that what you got out of “Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard”?

I realize we are usually on the same page but if Gary was being facetious or sarcastic, I missed it this time. Maybe he was mimicking what some gun nuts would say.

My viewpoint as a Viet Nam vet on private ownership of weapons. If you enable you are responsible. If you want to quote the 2nd Amendment - the arms you have the “right to bear” are unrifled muzzle loading muskets that the founding fathers were referring to; not modern day automatics or semi-automatics with their ranges of a mile or more.

Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard.

You might have a different opinion if you or a loved one got caught by a misdirected bullet—which happens all the time.

Besides that, do you have no interest in the kind of society you live in?

Lois, Gary’s post here states that: “he shouldn’t have to worry about the drunk with the gun…”
In otherwords the societal/legal conditions(ie lax gun laws) put Gary(and most of us) in a position in which he may have to worry about that.

Your retort is misdirected. You and Gary are on the same page.

Is that what you got out of “Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard”?

I realize we are usually on the same page but if Gary was being facetious or sarcastic, I missed it this time. Maybe he was mimicking what some gun nuts would say.

Gary, can you clear this up?

Lois

The drunken gun owner incident actually happened and my some of my friends will no longer come to my house due to it. It was the third incident in my neighborhood since I moved in 5 years ago. does the right to bear arms overrule my right to sit in my own yard?

Signature

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

The drunken gun owner incident actually happened and my some of my friends will no longer come to my house due to it. It was the third incident in my neighborhood since I moved in 5 years ago. does the right to bear arms overrule my right to sit in my own yard?

Once again, this makes my point. The laws aren’t being enforced. Discharging a weapon in an urban area is illegal and the owner may be prosecuted for reckless endangerment. Did any of your neighbors call the cops? If so did they investigate the incidents? And no, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect stupid. No one can overrule your right to be secure on your own property.

The drunken gun owner incident actually happened and my some of my friends will no longer come to my house due to it. It was the third incident in my neighborhood since I moved in 5 years ago. does the right to bear arms overrule my right to sit in my own yard?

Once again, this makes my point. The laws aren’t being enforced. Discharging a weapon in an urban area is illegal and the owner may be prosecuted for reckless endangerment. Did any of your neighbors call the cops? If so did they investigate the incidents? And no, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect stupid. No one can overrule your right to be secure on your own property.

Cap’t Jack

Yea, the idiot got a fine. His wife divorced him also. The cop (who lives next door to me) took the guns. BTW every cop in the neighborhood that I talked to is supporting stricter gun laws, so are most of the firemen, particularly after the incident near Rochester last year where that idiot started his house on fire so he could shoot the fireman, let alone the problem with ammo in buildings that are on fire.

Signature

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

My viewpoint as a Viet Nam vet on private ownership of weapons. If you enable you are responsible. If you want to quote the 2nd Amendment - the arms you have the “right to bear” are unrifled muzzle loading muskets that the founding fathers were referring to; not modern day automatics or semi-automatics with their ranges of a mile or more.

Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard.

You might have a different opinion if you or a loved one got caught by a misdirected bullet—which happens all the time.

Besides that, do you have no interest in the kind of society you live in?

Lois, Gary’s post here states that: “he shouldn’t have to worry about the drunk with the gun…”
In otherwords the societal/legal conditions(ie lax gun laws) put Gary(and most of us) in a position in which he may have to worry about that.

Your retort is misdirected. You and Gary are on the same page.

Is that what you got out of “Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard”?

I realize we are usually on the same page but if Gary was being facetious or sarcastic, I missed it this time. Maybe he was mimicking what some gun nuts would say.

My viewpoint as a Viet Nam vet on private ownership of weapons. If you enable you are responsible. If you want to quote the 2nd Amendment - the arms you have the “right to bear” are unrifled muzzle loading muskets that the founding fathers were referring to; not modern day automatics or semi-automatics with their ranges of a mile or more.

Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard.

You might have a different opinion if you or a loved one got caught by a misdirected bullet—which happens all the time.

Besides that, do you have no interest in the kind of society you live in?

Lois, Gary’s post here states that: “he shouldn’t have to worry about the drunk with the gun…”
In otherwords the societal/legal conditions(ie lax gun laws) put Gary(and most of us) in a position in which he may have to worry about that.

Your retort is misdirected. You and Gary are on the same page.

Is that what you got out of “Why should I have to worry about the drunken gun owners two blocks over who gets mad at his wife and decides to fire a round or two his backyard”?

I realize we are usually on the same page but if Gary was being facetious or sarcastic, I missed it this time. Maybe he was mimicking what some gun nuts would say.

Yea, the idiot got a fine. His wife divorced him also. The cop (who lives next door to me) took the guns. BTW every cop in the neighborhood that I talked to is supporting stricter gun laws, so are most of the firemen, particularly after the incident near Rochester last year where that idiot started his house on fire so he could shoot the fireman, let alone the problem with ammo in buildings that are on fire.

And well he should. I suppose you heard about the nut in our area who killed two men with a sniper rifle because he “caught” them supposedly breaking into an outbuilding near his property. It was later discovered that the two men (both Black coincidently) had purchased the property and we’re inspecting the building. It didn’t even belong to the shooter. When the police arrested him they found over 50 guns in his home and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. He was very well armed. He’s been charged with first degree murder.

I tried to use the muzzle loading argument a while ago, and the pro-gun guy said, “If you want to ban techological advances, then you’d have to limit the First Amendment to the spoken word and old method printing. Radio, Television, telephones, and the Internet statements wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment.” I dislike guns and think we should just have an amendment to eliminate the Second one, but, unfortunately, the muzzle loading argument doesn’t work.

Occam

But “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” does. Everyone who wants to own a gun should be an active member of the National Guard and receive training every year, or multiple times a year, with no age limit. In fact, it should be ramped up and the members should be ready to be called up for active duty at any time for all security threats. Can’t do it? Not qualified? Disabled? No gun!

I tried to use the muzzle loading argument a while ago, and the pro-gun guy said, “If you want to ban techological advances, then you’d have to limit the First Amendment to the spoken word and old method printing. Radio, Television, telephones, and the Internet statements wouldn’t be protected by the First Amendment.” I dislike guns and think we should just have an amendment to eliminate the Second one, but, unfortunately, the muzzle loading argument doesn’t work.

Occam

But “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” does. Everyone who wants to own a gun should be an active member of the National Guard and receive training every year, or multiple times a year, with no age limit. In fact, it should be ramped up and the members should be ready to be called up for active duty at any time for all security threats. Can’t do it? Not qualified? Disabled? No gun!

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (Scalia), in a Second Amendment case involving the city of Washington, D.C. went to great lengths to separate the two parts of the amendment referring to militia and gun ownership. I think he was wrong, but we’re stuck with that interpretation until a later court comes up with a different opinion.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (Scalia), in a Second Amendment case involving the city of Washington, D.C. went to great lengths to separate the two parts of the amendment referring to militia and gun ownership. I think he was wrong, but we’re stuck with that interpretation until a later court comes up with a different opinion.

Occam

Yes, the founding fathers only put that in to be ornery. Tney apparently didn’t really mean it.

But “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” does. Everyone who wants to own a gun should be an active member of the National Guard and receive training every year, or multiple times a year, with no age limit. In fact, it should be ramped up and the members should be ready to be called up for active duty at any time for all security threats. Can’t do it? Not qualified? Disabled? No gun!

I love that idea, want to see membership in the NRA drop to next to nothing when people actually have to put their lives on the line in the actual spirit of the Amendment.

And it seems that the ones with the loudest mouths e.g. The far right wing shock jocks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly and their ilk had never put their lives on the line for this country. Not one of them ever wore the uniform or went into harms way to protect the Second Amendment. Those who consistently whine about protecting their right to tote an automatic weapon or own a gun with multiple round magazines have never witnessed its devestating effects. Those are really only known by combat vets and the police, state and local. Ask them what it feels like to be shot, or shot at by one of those weapons.